Gay Birds and Bees: Is Homosexuality Really Unnatural?

Every philosophy contains its own inherent logical implications. For instance, Charles Darwin once suggested: “There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties” (1898). If such a philosophy were adopted by a society, how would that civilization seek to explain the behavior of its members? One way would be to study the behaviors of animals and reason that since humans are little more than “complex” animals, bestial behaviors could be justified and accounted for based solely on the assertion that animals in the natural world perform them.

Justification of heinously immoral behavior based on an observance of such in the animal kingdom has become fashionable. Barbara Burke said humans can potentially justify murdering their babies because animals (such as pigs and dogs) often murder their offspring (1974, 185:653). Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer suggested that rape is an evolutionary by-product that can be explained based on behaviors in the animal kingdom (2000). The villainous Adolf Hilter justified his crimes in a 1933 speech in Nuremberg by comparing his atrocities to animal behavior. He stated: “Thus there results the subjection of a number of people under the will, often of only a few persons, a subjection based simply upon the right of the stronger, a right which, as we see in Nature, can be regarded as the sole conceivable right, because it is founded on reason” (see “The Einsatzgruppen Case,” 1998).

Following suit, the Oslo Natural History Museum recently opened the world’s first exhibit documenting cases of “homosexual” behavior in nature. The exhibit suggests that because animals such as penguins, parrots, beetles, whales, giraffes, and others display certain behaviors that could be construed as homosexual, then homosexuality among humans cannot be viewed as “unnatural.” One of the statements on the exhibit reads: “We may have opinions on a lot of things, but one thing is clear—homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom, it is not against nature” (Doyle, 2006).

In response to such thinking, several points need to be considered. Humans are not animals. There is no documented evidence verifying the false idea that humans evolved from lower organisms (see Harrub and Thompson, 2002). In fact, all observable evidence verifies that humans maintain a completely unique status in regard to their mental, emotional, and cognitive components (see “In the Image...,” 2001; Lyons and Thompson, 2002). To justify human behavior based on behavior observed in the animal world exhibits a grotesque ignorance of everything humans understand about morality. Ten percent of the diet of an adult Komodo dragon often consists of its cannibalizing young Komodo dragons. Would anyone be so irrationally disturbed as to suggest that because we see infant cannibalism in Komodo dragons it is a natural practice for humans that cannot be classified as “unnatural”? The ploy to justify homosexuality by suggesting that it is “natural” is little more than an attempt to cast aside all moral constraints and debase society to the point of mindless bestiality.

In truth, homosexuality is against nature, that is, the natural way that God designed humans to function. The inspired apostle Paul condemned homosexuality as a sin:

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the naturaluse for what is againstnature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due (Romans 1:26-27, emp. added).

Homosexuality goes against human nature in at least two fundamental ways. First, on a basic physical, anatomical level, homosexuality disregards the natural use of the sexual organs of men and women. Humans were designed to be sexually compatible in order to reproduce and bear offspring (see Genesis 1:28). If homosexuality were a natural, genetic occurrence (which it is not—see Harrub and Miller, 2004), the genes responsible for it would quickly disappear due to the inability of same sex couples to reproduce. Second, God designed men and women to be capable of a relationship in marriage unlike any other human relationship. When a man and a woman are joined together, they become “one-flesh,” a biblical phrase that describes the epitome of intimacy and compatibility (Genesis 2:23). God specifically designed Eve, and all future women, to be perfect helpers suitable for Adam, and subsequent men. And, while it is true that sinful humans often fail to achieve the intimacy and oneness designed by God, it is not because of faulty design, but of people’s sinful decisions. God designed men and women to be naturally compatible both physically and emotionally.

If human behavior can be justified based on the idea that it mimics animal behavior, then why not abolish all laws, allow stronger humans to kill the weaker ones, allow mothers to eat their babies, allow men to murder sexual rivals, allow women to murder and cannibalize their lovers after intercourse, and simply chalk such a deplorable situation up to “nature”? The logical consequences of such a philosophical justification are as obvious as they are ridiculous. God created humans, so He knows what is in accordance with human nature, and He has clearly stated that homosexuality is aberrant, unnatural, sinful behavior.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "America's Culture War" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.